Fwd: Re: XR1541 ebeam resist (SOG) for bonding experiment

Hi all --
I don't recall a request for SOG in the tylan oxidation furnaces from
Jae, but it would appear he's doing this. It's not disastrous, I
suppose, but it brings up some questions about our policy.
We've relied for a long time on the Gold/semiclean/clean designation
system which is awfully handy, but as we know, simplistic. It's overly
conservative for some processes (etchers) and sometimes not enough for
others (furnaces, wet benches).
I wonder if we should also incorporate some aspects of the semiconductor
fab convention distinguishing front end and back end processing. The
SOG is a case in point. It's originally designed to be a back-end
material, so is clean enough for back-end and cured to withstand backend
temperatures. But if it's used as a bonding material, it will be going
into high-temp front-end tools, like the oxidation furnaces. It's
normally cured at 400 C - but going into a furnace at 900 C, the film
will continue to change. And I really think that it should not go into
Epi (not that this has come up, but no doubt it will.) So, I think
there's a case to be be made for defining different levels of "clean" --
without getting too convoluted.
Also, for this specific case, HSQ for ebeam resist strikes me as being
different from SOG designed to be interlevel dielectric. It's designed
to be removable hard mask, so I'm not sure it's metal-free. Also, got a
lot of covalently-bound organics in it whereas I think that classic
SOG's do not -- which suggests that high temperature curing will result
in different by-products.
Maurice and I will follow up with J and Jae for more info. But I
thought this might be a good illustration of an area where our
contamination policy isn't sufficient. There's a lot of SOG work going
on and it seems to be increasing.
Mary
-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: mtang at stanford.edu
Received: from smtp-unencrypted2.Stanford.EDU (LHLO
smtp-unencrypted.stanford.edu) (171.67.219.85) by zm04.stanford.edu with
LMTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-unencrypted.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain
[127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 66A5752F5 for
<mtang at zm04.stanford.edu>; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snf.stanford.edu (snf.Stanford.EDU [171.64.100.112]) by
smtp-unencrypted.stanford.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 2957E52F3 for
<mtang at stanford.edu>; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1709 invoked by uid 20357); 13 Aug 2011 14:45:28 -0000
Delivered-To: mtang at snf.stanford.edu
Received: (qmail 1707 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2011 14:45:28 -0000
Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (HELO smtp.stanford.edu)
(171.67.219.82) by snf.stanford.edu with SMTP; 13 Aug 2011 14:45:28 -0000
Received: from smtp.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 173128112; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:45:28
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (c-67-169-68-111.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
[67.169.68.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No
client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mtang) by
smtp.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 830D08100; Sat, 13 Aug 2011
07:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E468E19.6050304 at stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:45:45 -0700
From: Mary Tang <mtang at stanford.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: J Provine <jprovine at stanford.edu>
CC: maurice stevens <maurice at stanford.edu>, Mary Tang
<mtang at snf.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: XR1541 ebeam resist (SOG) for bonding experiment
References:
<CAOKRUa=y-oOMaMk37=2GP1kwJy0CYHMpvFaMMgpWfdQy_-WrJA at mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
<CAOKRUa=y-oOMaMk37=2GP1kwJy0CYHMpvFaMMgpWfdQy_-WrJA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------000904070302050305010108"
Hi J --
Jae's Specmat process request from April had nothing to do with SOG,
just W from Sandia. So, we're still trying to figure out how we got
from W to SOG-coated innotec-deposited metal in wet benches where metal
films/non-silicides are prohibited. But your question brings up some
good questions about our cleanliness policy.
Spin-on-glasses for electronics applications are certified electronics
grade -- I'm not sure HSQ's for resist applications are. Would you
happen to have an elemental analysis for this stuff? If it can be
considered electronics grade (i.e., metal ion free), then it's
considered clean by our current lab standards.
M
On 8/13/2011 7:12 AM, J Provine wrote:
> hi mary and maurice,
> due to some recent confusion i wanted to double check with you about a
> procedure using the XR1541 ebeam resist (a type of SOG) for a high
> temperature bond. i want to spin XR1541 onto clean wafers (Si and
> SiO2 covered) and bond with pressure from a weight in litho. the
> weight i'll cover in fresh foil and i'll use another clean wafer
> between my process wafers and weight. this will be baked with
> pressure up to 400C for several hours on a hot plate. then i would
> anneal the wafers in tylan1 or tylan2 with the recipe slow900a that
> maurice set up with jae lee. but before going into tylan1/2 i would
> do a diffusion clean.
>> the question is, is it ok to diffusion clean and introduce the wafers
> into tylan1/2 with the XR1541 after the 400C bake?
>> thank you,
>> j
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20110813/684f84bc/attachment.html>